ELECTION (1999 - Cert 15)

Film Four is always good for chucking a little nugget my way. And so it was again, when I came across Election, the film where it all started to go right for director Alexander Payne. A lot of praise has been heaped on him of late for The Descendants (and Oscars in fact, one for his writing credit and a couple of nominations for best director and best film). I must admit that I've not yet seen that film, but it was Sidways which really put Payne on the map for me. A real man's rom-com, with a sneery, self-deprecating quality, something that I'm told is a feature of all of his films (except perhaps Jurassic Park 3, for which he has a writing credit - invested factoid of the day). That is one of the main reasons why I approached Election with high hopes.

High hopes that were thankfully met.

In today's politically troubled times, don't be put off by the title, it's not the sort of democratic process that you might fear. Instead it centres on a campaign to become High School President in full-on suburban Omoha. Matthew Broderick is Jim McAllister, teacher of the year who is in charge of the whole process. A very young Reese Witherspoon is Tracy Flick, irritating class boffin, know-it-all, overly ambitious, self centred but yet still popular, and is also the only candidate for President. That is until McAllister decides to get involved, and to teach Tracy a bit of a lesson, and convinces polite, popular and frankly dim, football hero Paul Metzler (Chris Klein - yes, Oz from American Pie) to run against her. You don't need to be a post-graduate in genre convention to know that things don't turn out quite how everyone would expect.

The high school election thing, particular to us reserved Brits, is a strange idea, and the oddness and unfamiliarity does serve well when it comes to comedy, but it has to be said that the plot isn't really the driving force of why the film works so well. It serves as a traffic policeman trying to keep erratic drivers in revved-up and unreliable vehicles on the straight and narrow. The drivers and cars in this case being the characters and the writing. Payne is mischievous in how he structures the film. It veers this way and that, you are never really sure who the narrative is fully focused on, therefore you never really know who you are meant to be behind. He also serves up some nutty, unpredictable and odd personas up on screen. The casting of Broderick is a master stroke. He still looks stupidly young (he would have been mid-late 30's at the time of this film), and you can still see him as Ferris causing chaos. Here though he is the institution, he is the bad guy. He's no Rooney though, there is still a cheeky rebellious side to his character, without it there wouldn't be an opposition to Tracy and the film wouldn't go anywhere. What you are effectively left with is Mr Bueller, this is what may have happened to Ferris (in fact this may make a superb double bill with Ferris). I've never been overly convinced by Broderick in the acting stakes but he is very good in this. Even when things start to go really wrong for his character, at home as well as at school, he proves that he is able to do the emotion as well as the cheeky, spritely joviality. 

Witherspoon is a strange one. Somehow, I really like her, yet when I look at her filmography, I realise that she hasn't really done anything that I really like, nothing that I consider much good anyway. Walk the Line I hear you say, yes she was decent in it, but it was predictably generic and that lessened her role. Water for Elephants? Ok, again, she was decent, but the film is instantly forgettable. So why do I like her? That question doesn't matter any more, because I have found a reason - Election. Despite her character being so nasty and irritating, she does it in an over the top and funny way, you can't help but like her even though you know that this character should be despised. Part of the appeal is that she isn't afraid to make herself look stupid, she's an attractive girl, but she will happily make stupid faces, chuck herself about and gurn until the cows come home. It's a performance that worked and got her noticed, she received a Golden Globe Nomination. It clearly helped set her on the path she is firmly on now.  

Witherspoon and Broderick are backed up nicely by Klein (doing the same thing he did in American Pie, safe and steady), Jessica Campbell as Metzler's vengeful and possibly lesbian sister Tammy, Phil Reeves doing the headmaster thing very well and Mark Harelik as McAllister's disgraced friend and former colleague. All of them, chipping in very well with humour, twisted bitterness and occasional oddities. 

Payne really gets the best out of his cast, but it's also helped by the skilled writing (he was nominated at the Oscars for best adapted screenplay). The snappy dialogue, internal monologues and voiceovers all all perfectly pitched, the laughs keep coming and the story zips along nicely. Diablo Cody is getting a lot of plaudits for her screenplay style in recent years, but it seems to me that Payne was doing it a long time before she ever was, and arguably, much better. 

If you've not seen it, it may be that this film passes you by, lost in the limbo of late night showings on Channel 4. Don't let it, seek it out, it's well worth it. 

WATER FOR ELEPHANTS (2011 - cert 12A)

While I was at the most recent Secret Cinema I was stood with my friends talking to one of the actors, a child who had lost her mother, and realised that I was stood outside a mock-up of an old cinema in French occupied Algeria. On it's outside wall were posters of old films, and I joked about how all old film posters were the same.  A man and a woman embracing in the foreground with all sorts of flashes of action snapped from the film going on behind them. Gone With The Wind is the perfect example.

Later as I filed out of the Secret Cinema venue and hurried to catch a train to a BBQ in Waterloo I saw a poster for Water For Elephants, which I knew I was seeing the next day, the girlfriend having put in a request after a long sequence of us going to see 'my' choices.

It's clearly a throwback to those posters, the similarities jump out immediately. In many ways it sums up the whole film. It really is an old-fashioned love story, it looks like it, it feels like it. It even starts like it. Right from the opening scene that is only just short of clunky, where an old man turns up at the circus only to do so late and miss the show. He is taken into the office by a staff member who tries to ring round to find out which retirement home he is from. They talk and it transpires that the old man used to work at the circus, not just any circus, the Benzini Brothers Circus years, years ago back in 1931. Cue laboured flashback. Yes, you're right, it's been done before, many times and it immediately reminded me of the opening of Titanic, but fortunately not nearly as irritating.  Anyway, we drift back to 1931 and the old man's voice becomes that of R-Patz, sorry Robert Pattinson, this is a serious role for the heart throb from Barnes as he tries to move away from the teen-vampire-flick market, dispelling with the nickname that the female teenage masses have given him. 

Pattinson plays Jacob, a young man who has it all, about to become a vet and embark on a successful life. It quickly goes wrong though when his parents die in a car crash. Heartbroken, he doesn't finish his training, he is thrown out of his house and wanders the railways searching for the first train he comes across to take him to a new life. That first train is the travelling Benzini Brothers Circus and he quickly snaps himself a job as the vet. The film then focuses on a love triangle involving Jacob, Reese Witherspoon's character Marlena, the star attraction of the circus with her horses act, and August, the owner of the circus played by Chrisopth Waltz (Inglorious Basterds). 

It's fair to say that I wasn't thrilled at the prospect of this film, I said yes conscious of the fact that I was always dragging the girlfriend to the next Superhero film. This hesitancy could be to blame for the fact that while I was in the cinema there were parts of the film where I was bored, it dragged more often than a film should. So much so that when I left, I was convinced I hadn't enjoyed the film at all. I rolled my eyes as we got out, and in my defence the girlfriend didn't enjoy it much either. She thought long stretches were dull as well. Then the more time that passed, the more we both found ourselves thinking about it, the more scenes appeared in my mind, the more moments we kept bringing up in conversation. The weirdest thing was that the more I thought about the scenes, the more positively I felt about them. My attitude now is completely different to that of when I left the cinema. 

I've pondered long and hard about why this phenomenon has taken place and I can only really put it down to the characters and the actors. The film is very tightly written by the experienced hand of Richard LaGravenese, who has things like the Bridges of Madison County and The Fisher King under his belt, so credit should go there where it is due, but it's the actors who really bring the characters to life. All three corners of the love triangle on show here shine, each in different ways. R-Patz, sorry, Robert Pattinson is who the film follows but is probably the least interesting character of them all. That isn't to say his time on screen is dull though. He is assured and confident and keeps the film pushing along with a performance that does suggest he might actually make the transition to 'proper' actor. His Jacob is instantly likeable and although it seems simple and obvious to state the importance of that, it's not easy to actually pull it off. Reese Witherspoon doesn't stand out in Water For Elephants, but again this is not a criticism. She has become so consistently dependable that we just expect her to be nothing short of very good. She has a gift of always being someone different in all of her roles, but not changing much about her at all. She always looks and sounds like Reese Witherspoon, but she is always someone else despite that. Waltz, once again, is the show stealer. Like in Inglorious he plays a charming nutcase, smiling his way through the film but behind that grin you know he is a complete and utter maniac. It's great to watch but it's a shame that it feels like it's been done before, all be it being a more child friendly version in this instance. 

For director Francis Lawrence it's an interesting move. Following Constantine and I Am LegandCGI, highlighted in I Am Legend, is again apparent here, the animals looking cheap, lifted straight from a B-Movie.

So, it would seem that's a positive review, which I certainly wouldn't have foreseen if you had grabbed me as I was filing out of the exit of my local multiplex. It leaves me in quite a difficult position, because I would recommend it, but in doing so I would be stating that it is acceptable to leave me bored during a film if afterwards I gradually change my mind. Yes it's slightly tedious in places and a bit overly soppy throughout, but if you can get past that accept the old-school nature of it then you may just be surprised.... 

MONSTERS VS ALIENS (2009)

Sunday evening, just come through the worst hangover in living memory, curry ordered, Monday morning approaching fast.....film choice was always going to be a tough decision. I've got a couple of arty subtitled films to get through, a bit of ultra violent dross as well, but I just needed something.....well nice. And Easy. I scrolled through the film channels and there on Sky Family, was Monsters vs Aliens.



Another digitally animated film from the prolific Dreamworks studio (responsible for the Shrek series and the much underrated Jerry Seinfeld film Bee Movie), I felt safe, I had expectations of what I was getting into and I was fairly sure that they would be met. You would have cute characters, they would be voiced buy a range of current stars, there will be enough action and slap stick to keep the kids happy, but there will also be a fair dose of jokes aimed at the grown ups with film references galore, bit of peril but everyone living happily ever after.

I don't know what is more remarkable - me getting the checklist so spot on or the film ticking all the boxes so unashamedly. It seems that their is now a recognised formula for these films and Dreamworks think they've got it licked.

It's a story that has quite a bit of promise. Earth under attack from an evil Alien and Humankind's only hope are the monsters that the American government have kept locked away. There is a 50 foot woman (Reese Witherspoon), a blob (Seth Rogen), a fish man (Will Arnett), a human-sized genius professor cockroach (Hugh Laurie - hasn't he done well) and a giant bug/insect/thing. Its a clever idea that plays on the modern fascination with UFO's and conspiracy theories. At times it looks as though it will try to be daring and to play on the 1950's genre films and paranoia that went with it, but these are only flirtations and it soon gets back on to safe ground and box ticking. It all trundles along well enough, the first two acts being mechanical but enjoyable, working towards a big set-piece that feels like an ending. The trouble is, it isn't the ending. It carries on. What happens afterwards doesn't really work though and it all becomes a bit tiresome, still chucking the gags at you, enough to keep you amused, but not enough to stop you thinking about something else.

One thing this movie does have is sublime animation. It's very ambitious and relatively realistic looking so the big action scenes do look superb. A huge battle on the Golden Gate Bridge, particularly stands out as well as the real finale aboard a huge spaceship.

Once I got to that finale though and the credits rolled, I was surprised at how little effect the film had on me. It seems that the Dreamworks formula has a flaw. It does not factor in a heart, something that Pixar would not dare to forget. Films like Up, Wall-E and the Toy Story trilogy all tick the same boxes but do it with a dash of flair and creativity and above all else characterisation that really makes the viewer care what is happening.

Monsters vs Aliens is good fun, it's entertaining, it is funny (the American President should get special mention), the voice acting is well done, the action is gripping, but the whole film is instantly forgettable. It was perfect for the hungover mood I was in, disposable entertainment to go with the dirty grub I was guiltily putting away, but it's not something I would ever seek out again.

FOUR CHRISTMASES (2008)

Right, so it's Sunday evening. I've been away for the weekend to Bury St Edmunds. Done some Christmas shopping. Feel a bit groggy from the night before. Get back to the sofa, use my two pizzas for 10 quid voucher at Pizza Express. What next? Well, the girlfriend fancies something 'Christmassy'. She doesn't fancy Black Christmas, I don't really want to go down the Miracle on 34th Street route. That leaves the movie channels, which leaves us at a crossroads. Home Alone 2 or Four Christmases? One I have seen, the other I have not. One I have fond memories of from growing up, the other I have only heard bad things. Classic family comedy v ropey romantic comedy.

Perhaps it was the hangover. It may have been my hurt at being let down by the recent re-watching of National Lampoon's vacation. It may have even been sub-conscious pressure from the better half. Or a narcissistic desire to review something I don't think I will like. Whatever it was, I chose Four Christmases as we tucked into a Sloppy Guiseppe and a Pollo Ad Astra.



Vince Vaughn (new rom-com regular) and Reese Witherspoon play a couple, a couple who are happy as they are. They don't fancy marriage, they don't fancy kids. They are a 21st century pairing, happy with what they have and don't want to go down the ruinous route that their parents undertook, which has consequently left them both with two separate families each. Two families per character, 4 in total, Christmas day, 4 different Christmas celebrations. And that is essentially the set-up. Once their usual selfish holiday plans are put to the sword due to fog, they have to each visit the different factions of one another's families.

You have his bad tempered, red neck dad, her flirtatious, evangelical Christian, cougar mum, she also has a kind caring father, but he must visit his mother who now has a sexual relationship with his old best friend.

And that is it really. Not much else.

I sensed that the film makers saw 'Meet The Parents' and thought to themselves, 'that's a good idea - let's do four mini versions of that in one movie'. And that is all we have here. There is physical comedy (which is, I must admit, comical and, at times, well done) and then gross out, cringey gags that are predictable and far from laugh out loud.

It isn't particularly funny, but then it isn't exactly devoid of humour altogether. I chuckled twice (the girlfriend counted), nothing more, nothing less. Is that what constitutes a comedy these days? I should certainly hope not. Spaceballs and Airplane! managed the same amount in the credits sequence. Have standards slipped that much?

What is most upsetting is the great actors that appear. Jon Voigt, Robert Duvall, Sissy Spacek. Has it really come to this? You should all know better than this. Please do not be tempted by De Niro's turn in Meet The Parents. He is better than that, and so are you.

Jon Favreau and Vince Vaughn share screen time, and they have to resort to wrestling moves and kicks in the balls. These sequences are some of the only amusing moments, but these two bounced off one another in Swingers with dialogue that few people have emulated since. You two are 'money'. Please take me back to those times.

The film also tries to have a message. Please stop this. Don't do it, You can't have a gross out, inappropriate comedy for an hour and then decide that you want the main characters to fall in love all over again as they realise the error of their ways. I despised them at the beginning, what makes you think that I give a toss as to whether they live happily ever after and overcome the badly portrayed commitment phobias that they both have?

It could have been an interesting comedy, an insight into the modern family and how fractured Christmas has become. A study of the 21st century nuclear family or it dissolution. Instead it is an example of how fractured comedies have become, with little thought put into, and time spent on character and narrative. I criticised National Lampoons for it's broken and incomplete structure, and here we have the same problem, 20 years later. Has nothing changed?

Plus it doesn't feel remotely Christmassy. Four Christmases, not one but four, and not once does you ever make you long for Turkey, sprouts and bad telly. If it can't deliver on this, and it can't give you the laughs, what on earth is the point?

If this is what we have to resort to at this time every year, then Bah Humbug.